Efficacy and safety of sequencing with vemurafenib (V) plus cobimetinib (C) followed by atezolizumab (Atezo) in patients (pts) with advanced <i>BRAF<sup>V600</sup></i>-positive melanoma: Interim analysis of the ImmunoCobiVem study.
Authors: Dirk Schadendorf, Helen Gogas, Lidija Kandolf Sekulovic, Friedegund Elke Meier, Thomas Eigentler, Jan-Christoph Simon, Patrick Andres Maximilian Terheyden, Anja Heike Gesierich, Rudolf Alexander Herbst, Katharina C. Kähler, Dimitrios C. Ziogas, Zeljko Mijuskovic, Marlene Garzarolli, Claus Garbe, Alexander Roesch, Selma Ugurel, Ralf Gutzmer, Jean-Jacques Grob, Lisa Zimmer, Elisabeth Livingstone
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

9548 Background: Immunotherapies (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) have improved PFS and OS in BRAF V600 -mutated advanced melanoma pts, but evidence regarding their optimal sequence is limited. The randomized phase 2 ImmunoCobiVem study evaluated efficacy and safety of an early switch to Atezo after initial treatment with V + C. Interim results are reported. Methods: Pts with previously untreated BRAF V600 -mutated advanced melanoma received a 3-mo run-in with V (960 mg twice daily) + C (60 mg once daily for 21/28 days). Pts without PD/treatment interruption due to AEs during run-in were then randomized 1:1 to continue V + C (Arm A) or switch to Atezo (1200 mg every 3 wks; Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1), followed by crossover to the alternate treatment until second documented PD (PD2). End points were PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death from any cause), PFS2 (time from start of run-in until PD2 or death from any cause), PFS3 (time from PD1 until PD2 or death from any cause), DCR, ORR, OS, and safety. Results: 185 pts were enrolled between Nov 2016 and Dec 2019 (63% male; median age 58 y); 135 pts completed run-in and were randomized to Arm A (n=69) or Arm B (n=66). At data cutoff, median follow-up for all pts was 19.0 mo. In Arm A, 36/69 pts (52%) discontinued V + C due to PD and 21/36 (58%) crossed over to Atezo; in Arm B, 49/66 pts (74%) discontinued Atezo due to PD and 35/49 (71%) crossed over to V + C. Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37–0.84; P=0.001), while median PFS3 was significantly shorter in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.17–4.30; P=0.013); median PFS2 was not significantly different between arms (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.83–2.96; P=0.163) (Table). During the randomized phase, ORR and DCR were higher in Arm A before crossover and in Arm B after crossover (Table). OS was similar between arms (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.69–2.16; P=0.389). Median (range) treatment duration across treatment phases was 11.2 mo (2.3–56.1) for Arm A and 10.7 mo (2.8–56.7) for Arm B. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of pts in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; AEs led to discontinuation in 10% and 12%, respectively. Conclusions: Early switch from V + C to Atezo is feasible and safe, but tumor control achieved in run-in is maintained in only a subset of pts on subsequent ICI monotherapy. Crossover to ICI monotherapy at PD results in low response, while response to TT re-exposure is frequent. Clinical trial information: NCT02902029. [Table: see text]